IN RE CROSSLAN/KEENER MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of CLAYTON CROSSLAN, AUSTIN
KEENER, RAYMOND DUANE KEENER,
SULAINA KEENER, and SAVAINA KEENER,
Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 7, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 255143
Calhoun Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-004437-NA
RAYMOND KEENER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DEBRA KEENER,
Respondent.
Before: Borrello, P.J., and Murray and Fort Hood, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant Raymond Keener (“respondent”) appeals as of right from the trial
court’s order terminating his parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i),
(g) and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331,
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). At the time of the termination hearing, the children had been in
foster care for approximately eighteen months. The children were initially adjudicated
temporary court wards in 2002, because of a neglectful and unfit living environment, and
respondent’s failure to properly care for the children. Additionally, the family had a prior
history with protective services, dating back to before November 2000, because of neglect, lack
of supervision, and domestic violence. As a result of respondent’s failure to properly parent,
-1-
supervise, and provide for the children, they were unkempt, academically and socially
challenged, and aggressive toward each other. Services were provided to respondent for more
than three years in total, and he was given ample opportunity to demonstrate his ability and
willingness to care for the children, but the evidence showed that he failed to sufficiently benefit
from the services offered.
Although respondent participated in services, he failed to achieve the underlying and
fundamental objective, which was to be in a mental, emotional, and financial position to properly
parent and supervise the children. Despite several months of intervention, respondent continued
to lack sufficient control of the children, was unable or unwilling to understand, internalize and
employ proper parenting skills, failed to acknowledge his continuing issues with anger, and
continued to make inappropriate decisions regarding the children’s well being. The evidence
also showed that, throughout the case, respondent failed to consistently and substantially comply
with the parent-agency agreement, which was designed to enable him to address the issues that
brought the children into care and to regain custody of his children. Notably, respondent
consistently failed to demonstrate proper parenting techniques and skills during visits, and failed
to maintain adequate housing for the children. The trial court could properly consider
respondent’s failure to comply with the parent-agency agreement as an indication that the past
neglect would continue. See In re Hall, 188 Mich App 217, 223-224; 469 NW2d 56 (1991); In
re Miller, 182 Mich App 70, 83; 451 NW2d 576 (1990).
Contrary to respondent’s position, simply attending various counseling sessions,
parenting classes, and family visits was not enough to preclude termination of his parental rights
under the circumstances of this case. Rather, the evidence clearly established that respondent
was either unwilling or unable to attain the necessary growth to regain custody of the children.
Considering respondent’s history, conduct, capacity, and lack of adequate parenting skills, there
is no reasonable likelihood that his circumstances will sufficiently change or improve within a
reasonable time and, therefore, no reasonable expectation that he will be able to provide proper
care and custody within a reasonable time considering the ages of the children. Furthermore,
there is a reasonable likelihood that the children will be harmed if returned to respondent.
The evidence also did not show that termination of respondent’s parental rights was
clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 354;
612 NW2d 407 (2000). To the contrary, the evidence showed that the children were
detrimentally affected while in respondent’s custody, that their needs are being met in foster
care, that they have improved behaviorally since being removed from respondent’s custody, and
that they would be prone to further neglect if they were returned to respondent. The evidence
also showed that the children have needs, that require a structured, emotionally stable, and
supportive environment. Given respondent’s demonstrated deficiencies, and failure to
sufficiently benefit from the services offered, it is unlikely that he would be able to sufficiently
address the children’s needs within a reasonable time.
-2-
Affirmed.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
